Climate Justice on Trial: East Africa’s Stake in the ICJ Advisory Opinion
By Dhikusooka Ernest*
In 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) embarked on a historic journey to deliver an advisory opinion on States’ obligations under international law concerning climate change. Alongside parallel proceedings at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), we are witnessing a pivotal moment to transform the system of global climate governance. For East Africa, a region grappling with erratic weather patterns, prolonged droughts, and floods, the ICJ’s advisory opinion could redefine how States address climate justice. From the perspective of a Ugandan student pursuing International Relations and Diplomatic Studies at Cavendish University, I see these proceedings as a clear call for equity and accountability in the global climate regime.
My focus is on the ICJ advisory opinion’s transformative potentialities in influencing climate governance in East Africa, with a particular focus on Uganda, where climate impacts threaten livelihoods and human rights. I argue that the opinion must prioritize principles of climate justice —equity, historical responsibility, and intergenerational equity— to ensure that vulnerable nations like Uganda are not left to bear disproportionate burdens. By examining Uganda’s submissions to the ICJ and the region’s climate challenges, this post explores the advisory opinion’s potential to reshape multilateral climate cooperation and empower the youth and/or youth groups as agents of change in East Africa.
Context
East Africa, including Uganda, bears the brunt of some of the most severe climate impacts, despite contributing less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2022). In Uganda, changing rainfall patterns have disrupted agriculture, which employs over 70% of the population (FAO, 2023). The 2024 floods in eastern Uganda displaced thousands (OCHA, 2024), while prolonged droughts in Karamoja have exacerbated food insecurity (WFP, 2024). These realities underscore the region’s vulnerability and the urgency of international legal clarity on climate obligations.
The ICJ advisory proceedings stem from a 2023 UN General Assembly resolution, led by Vanuatu, requesting guidance on States’ responsibilities to mitigate climate harm and support adaptation (UNGA Resolution A/RES/77/276). Uganda, as part of the African Group, has emphasized historical responsibility and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDRRC) in its submissions (ICJ, 2024), advocating that developed nations, due to their historical emissions and greater economic capacity, bear a greater responsibility to lead in climate mitigation and provide financial and technological support for adaptation in vulnerable countries. These align with the Paris Agreement’s recognition that developed nations, with higher cumulative emissions, must lead mitigation and finance adaptation in vulnerable regions (UNFCCC, 2015).
Politically, East Africa operates within the African Union (AU) and the East African Community (EAC), which advocate for climate finance and technology transfers (AU Climate Strategy, 2022). However, multilateral climate governance often sidelines African voices, with pledges like the $100 billion annual climate finance target remaining unfulfilled (OECD, 2023). The ICJ opinion could strengthen African States’ leverage in negotiations, demanding accountability from high-emitting nations. For Uganda, this is critical, as limited resources hinder implementation of its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement (Uganda NDC, 2022).
The ICJ advisory opinion offers significant potential to reshape East Africa’s climate governance in three key areas: legal obligations, multilateral cooperation, and youth-led advocacy. This analysis, grounded in international relations, focuses on Uganda and the broader East African region, incorporating insights from the ITLOS, IACtHR, and African Court proceedings
Legal Obligations and State Responsibility
The ICJ is tasked with clarifying States’ obligations under international law, including treaties like the UNFCCC and customary law principles such as “no harm” (ICJ Statute, Article 38). Uganda’s submission to the ICJ, aligned with the African Group, emphasizes that high-emitting States bear primary responsibility for climate impacts due to their historical emissions (ICJ, 2024). This resonates with the principle of equity, a cornerstone of climate justice. For instance, the United States and European Union account for over 50% of historical CO2 emissions, while Africa’s share is negligible (Global Carbon Project, 2023). Yet, Uganda faces disproportionate impacts, with climate-induced losses estimated at 3-5% of GDP annually (World Bank, 2023).
The ICJ opinion could affirm that States have a legal duty to reduce emissions in line with the 1.5°C target and provide reparative measures, such as climate finance, to affected nations. This would align with ITLOS’s ongoing proceedings, which explore States’ obligations to protect marine environments from climate impacts (ITLOS, 2024). For Uganda, reliant on Lake Victoria for fishing and hydropower, ITLOS’s findings could reinforce demands for ecosystem protection. Similarly, the IACtHR’s focus on human rights could inspire African Court rulings to protect climate-vulnerable communities’ rights to food, water, and health in Uganda. Specifically, ITLOS’s examination of States’ obligations to safeguard marine environments could bolster Uganda’s efforts to protect Lake Victoria’s ecosystems, which are critical for sustaining fisheries and hydropower generation that support over 30% of the country’s electricity needs and millions of livelihoods.
However, challenges remain. State submissions to the ICJ reveal divergent views, with some developed nations downplaying historical responsibility. Specifically, countries like the United States, Germany, and the Nordic countries have argued in their submissions that the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) should not overly emphasize historical emissions, focusing instead on current and future obligations under frameworks like the Paris Agreement.
If the ICJ adopts a weak stance, it risks perpetuating inequities, leaving Uganda to fund adaptation through debt or diverted development budgets. A robust opinion, conversely, could empower Ugandan courts to pursue climate litigation against non-compliant States or corporations, building on precedents like the Netherlands’ Urgenda case (Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands, 2019). Indeed, in the landmark Urgenda Foundation v. Netherlands case (2019), the Dutch Supreme Court upheld a ruling that the government had a legal duty under the European Convention on Human Rights to protect its citizens by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020, setting a global precedent for state accountability in climate policy. If elements of this precedent were to be incorporated into the Opinion, this could empower Uganda’s judiciary to compel both state and corporate actors to align with climate justice principles, ensuring accountability for environmental damage that disproportionately affects vulnerable communities.
Multilateral Impact and UN Climate Governance
From the standpoint of international relations, the ICJ opinion could reshape multilateral climate negotiations. East African States, including Uganda, struggle to influence UNFCCC processes due to limited diplomatic capacity and economic leverage (UNFCCC, 2023). The African Group’s advocacy for CBDRRC (in light of national circumstances) and climate finance often meets resistance from developed nations. An ICJ advisory opinion affirming legal obligations could shift power dynamics, strengthening Uganda and its EAC partners’ negotiating positions at COP meetings.
For example, Uganda’s NDCs aim to reduce emissions by 22% by 2030, contingent on $8.3 billion in external funding (Uganda NDC, 2022). Yet, global climate finance flows remain inadequate, with only $79.6 billion disbursed in 2022, per OECD data. An ICJ ruling mandating increased finance could unlock resources for Uganda’s renewable energy projects, such as solar microgrids in rural areas. It could also strengthen EAC initiatives, like the Regional Climate Change Strategy, which seeks to harmonize adaptation efforts across Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda (EAC, 2022).
The influence of the advisory opinion may extend beyond the ICJ, potentially shaping the jurisprudence of other tribunals. While the African Court is not directly engaged in this process it could nonetheless draw upon the ICJ’s findings to adjudicate climate-related human rights violations, such as the forced displacement of communities in Uganda’s flood-prone regions (African Court, 2023). However, the efficacy of such multilateral cooperation ultimately hinges on political will. Should high-emitting States choose to disregard the ICJ’s advisory guidance, East African States may need to leverage strategic alliances –particularly with small island States– to strengthen their collective voice in global climate fora.
Youth Advocacy and Intergenerational Equity
As a young Ugandan, I perceive the ICJ proceedings as a vital forum for advancing intergenerational equity. Climate change poses a profound threat to the future of my generation. Uganda’s youth constitutes over 75% of the population and is currently grappling with unemployment, food insecurity, and the growing risk of climate-induced displacement. The ICJ’s advisory opinion must recognize the rights of future generations, echoing Uganda’s submission, which rightly calls for long-term accountability.
There is a growing mobilisation of youth movements, like Fridays for Future Uganda who are demanding policy shifts and renewable energy investments. The ICJ advisory opinion could provide a legal foundation for legitimizing youth demands, urging Uganda’s government to meaningfully integrate youth perspectives into its National Climate Change Policy by (NCCP, 2021) establishing formal mechanisms like youth advisory councils or participatory platforms . By aligning with the ICJ’s emphasis on intergenerational equity, the Network could push for policies that prioritize long-term sustainability, such as regional green skills academies or youth-led reforestation projects, fostering economic resilience and climate action across the East African Community.
However, youth groups face barriers, including limited access to decision-making spaces. The ICJ process itself has been critiqued for inadequate youth engagement, a gap also evident in ITLOS proceedings. To address this, the ICJ should recommend participatory mechanisms, such as youth advisory councils, in climate governance. In Uganda, this could mean formalizing youth roles in district-level adaptation planning.
As a Ugandan student, the ICJ advisory proceedings feel both distant and deeply personal. Growing up in Kampala, I’ve witnessed how unpredictable rains disrupt farmers’ livelihoods and how floods displace communities. These are not abstract issues but lived realities for my peers and myself. The proceedings offer hope that international law can be harnessed to hold powerful historically high-emitting nations accountable. Yet they also lay bare the inequities embedded within global governance. Why should Uganda –whose contribution to global historical emissions is, again, negligible– bear the brunt of a global crisis engendered to a greater extent by other States?
The concept of intergenerational equity strikes a deep chord, as my generation faces the consequences of a warming planet while often being sidelined in shaping climate solutions. The ICJ opinion must elevate youth voices, acknowledging our critical role in securing a sustainable future. In East Africa, where youth unemployment contributes to social instability, climate justice translates into creating green jobs and building resilient communities. While Uganda’s submission to the ICJ rightly champions equity, without binding and actionable outcomes, these calls risk becoming mere rhetoric.
At the regional level , the EAC’s solidarity gives me reason for optimism. Should the ICJ’s advisory opinion strengthen African advocacy, it could pave the way for Uganda to access critical climate finance. The funding could support the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure and reducing reliance on biomass which is a key driver for deforestation. Yet, I am critical of the slow pace of multilateral processes. The urgency of climate impacts in Karamoja or Kasese demands faster action than diplomatic deliberations allow.
As a future diplomat, I view the ICJ’s advisory opinion as a tool for reframing climate change as a shared global responsibility. It presents an opportunity to centre East Africa’s needs in international relations, ensuring that climate justice evolves beyond mere rhetoric and develops into a lived reality for my generation.
The ICJ advisory opinion on climate change is a landmark opportunity to advance climate justice in East Africa. By clarifying States’ legal obligations, it could compel high-emitting nations to fund adaptation and mitigation in vulnerable regions like Uganda. This would empower East African States to strengthen multilateral cooperation, secure climate finance, and integrate youth perspectives into climate governance. However, the opinion’s impact hinges on its enforceability and the political will of States’ to act on its guidance.
For Uganda, the stakes are high. Climate impacts threaten food security, livelihoods, and human rights, disproportionately affecting youth. I hope the ICJ opinion catalyses transformative change – equitable access to climate finance, robust regional policy frameworks, and meaningful platforms for youth engagement. As a student pursuing international relations, I envision a future in which East Africa’s voice plays a decisive role in shaping global climate governance – grounded in equity and intergenerational justice.
The world is watching the ICJ. Let it be a beacon of hope, ensuring that nations like Uganda are not left to face the climate crisis alone. Together, we can build a just, sustainable future for all.
*Dhikusooka Ernest is an Ugandan national and is studying a Bachelors of Arts in International Relations and Diplomatic Studies at Cavendish University, Uganda.
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in the symposium’s blog posts are those of the author and do not represent the views of WYCJ. Furthermore, university chapters were prepared, edited, and approved by the respective universities; WYCJ cannot guarantee the level of scientific and legal inquiry, nor the content of blog posts.